You could just use DDG or Google Search to learn how to do those things. You could try Bing, but it wouldn't give you any relevant results. I don't see how this part of "AI Safety" is really a thing we should worry about. Rogue autonomous cyber attacks? Sure. Censoring information? Nahh.
By contrast, it was a mere few months for xAI to procure and fire up 46 temp gas turbines for a datacenter in Mississippi for a reported rated capacity of at least 500MW.
and there are more to come.
does Elon have permits for all of these you ask?
This was discussed on the All-In podcast last week. The "temp turbines" are mobile units (truck-based,) and thus classified as temporary consumer use. They don't require permits, which is precisely why Musk's companies acquired controlling stake the company. The permitting process for a permanently installed base of power didn't meet the timeline, but those permit applications are in progress.
I'm not saying that xAI/Musk/whoever you want to blame is going out of their way to protect the environment from emissions, but the insinuation that they are somehow breaking the law/regulations by not having proper permits is patently false and also misleading by indicating intentional wrong-doing.
Isn't that basically what a Chromebook is?
Until someone can really, and I mean REALLY, explain to me what constitutes a token in a way that I can calculate and predict, these sorts of billing models are meaningless. Only then can we evaluate what the costs, risks and benefits of AI use really are in any sort of quantifiable way.
We don't have a parliament. We have a congress. That has worked tirelessly over the last fifty plus years to prove that they are so ineffective at doing anything at all that it's just easier to go around them and wait for the courts to step in to decide if it's OK after the fact. And once that started happening, the courts were subverted by the guys with the jackboots so that they didn't make "the wrong decisions," so, essentially, thuggish government officials have no checks and balances.
That's basically correct. The question now is, who's fault is that and who's job is it to fix the problem? I'll give you a hint. The answer to both is "the voting public."
...Most IT departments have no idea how to set up automatic updating properly so that it still gets the job done, but doesn't piss off the users that you can't really piss off (executives, etc.)...g.
Not sure how to measure "most," but "many" is probably accurate. But that's not Microsoft's fault, it's the department/IT's fault. There are plenty of ways to manage updates with varying levels of difficulty relative to control.
There's a big difference between how human authors operate and how LLMs operate...
Is there? How exactly do LLM's operate? I don't mean from a theoretical perspective. I mean from a "can you empirically tell me how LLMs generate their output?" perspective.
That's not a good analogy. What Google did was more like, they went in to their own corporate library, made copies of a bunch of books, and took the copies into the room next to their own corporate library and studied them. The books never left the building, but the person who studied them did. Without seeing the text of the license Google agreed to (and also probably being a Copyright lawyer,) we will probably never know if Google actually did anything illegal here. Immoral, unethical? Likely, but illegal? That's not always the same thing.
And I'm looking at that and thinking: Why the fuck hasn't government / the utilities done this for me?
That's all very impressive and commendable! I wish more were as thoughtful and motivated! But your above comment/question is probably the most important part of what you said.
401k's are not wiped out.
401K' s are agnostic of the status of the employer. They are not a perfect solution to retirement funds, but at least in this respect they are safer than, say, most employer funded pensions.
I see what you tried to do here, but I have actually read "Ready Player One." It has nothing to do with this, but has much more to do with kids spending all of their their social time in Fortnite.
You assume someone wants it and it is fiscally viable to rehab/refurbish for some other use. It may or may not be.
I mean I wouldn't advise a student to go to college for a career with low pay and college debt. So we either need to reduce the education requirements for things like mental health workers, nurses, and teachers or we need to pay them more.
Or, we should not make said requirement so prohibitively expensive that going in to such a profession requires going into unsurmountable debt.
I'm an unapologetic Capitalist, but that doesn't mean I believe we should allow the education system to profit at gouge-level from the system, and it definitely means we sure as hell should not be subsidizing and/or incentivizing the system on both ends.
Not defending the ISP's here, but that's not quite how it works in most of the U.S. In most places, it's labeled Sale Price + sales tax. Sales tax is usually predictable based on City/State, but varies amongst them.
Again, not defending the ISP's here, but at most U.S. stores they like to advertise (for example) "$6 pairs of socks for $9.99+tax." The final price, including tax, will vary by City/State. The "+Tax" part is usually fairly simple because it's just one or two percentage-based summed taxes.
ISP's are trying to do the same thing, except instead of just adding the total local/state/fed tax, they're also adding fees such as maybe Pole fees, billing fees, who knows what else. This allows them to advertise "$49.99/mo for 1Gb service" but once all the fees are added up, it's more like $65mo. Not sure what the right answer here is, but what they should have to do is advertise "$49.99/mo+TaxesAndFees for 1GB service" and then publish what those itemized taxes and fees are for all services areas. They don't want to do the latter.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie
